Replies

From the article [O'Toole is one of the experts from Johns Hopkins]:
“We wanted to make sure the heads of the intelligence agencies knew the specificity of the diagnosis,” O’Toole said. “I was afraid they didn’t understand that almost nothing causes a black [lesion] in an otherwise healthy young man. Apparently they didn’t know that and that’s upsetting.”

Is the diagnosis that definitive? Recall Dr. Gerald Weisfogel. He is the NJ cardiologist who suspected that he might have contracted the first case of anthrax, since he recalled having a black lesion consistent with cutaneous anthrax around Sept. 4; at the time, he thought it was a spider bite. The CDC tested his blood, and it proved negative for anthrax after all. (I'm not sure if this means testing for antibodies to anthrax, but I imagine a test after the fact has to be something like that.)

On the other hand, an interview with a CDC representative states that the test used in the Weisfogel case is "not validated for clinical use" and that they are "learning about their meaning and how to interpret them, but this test, in and of itself, is not usually as helpful as some of the other ways we have of diagnosing or excluding the diagnosis." So it's conceivable that Weisfogel did have anthrax, although the odds are against it.

O’Toole and Inglesby declined to name the FBI official who later contacted them informally about the case. A government official said the individual was “not involved in the investigation in any way and had no standing” to raise his concerns with the Hopkins experts. Those concerns were based on “partial information,” the official said, adding that the FBI official “never voiced his concerns internally or raised those issues from proper channels.”

To me, the real news in this story is contained in this paragraph. Obviously, there is a schism within the FBI on how to pursue the anthrax case. And the new developments are traced to somebody who isn't even assigned to the case -- but evidently disagrees with how it is being conducted.

Odd. I wonder if Barbara Whasserface's source is a member of the official investigative team, so that we have a case of Duelling Leakers.